R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition directed against the order of Board of Revenue the only question is whether Board was justified in setting aside the preliminary decree passed in a suit under Section 176 by the two courts below for non -compliance of Rule 157.
(2.) SECTIONS 176 to 182 of UP ZA Act of 1951 deal with partition and Section 182(8) provides that the division shall be effected in manner prescribed. Rule 157 reads as under: Before making a division the court shall - (a) determining separately the share of the Plaintiff and each of the other -co -tenure -holders, (b) record which, if any, of the co -tenure -holders which to remain joint. (c) made valuation of the holding (or holdings) in accordance with the rent rate applicable to each plot in the holding, and (d) determine separately the value of the share of the Plaintiff and each of the other co -tenure -holders. From a perusal of the rule it is apparent that its efficacy is at the stage of final decree. The preliminary decree is concerned with determination of title and share only. The rule has been framed to carry out the revisions contained in Sections 178 to 182. Even if it is assumed that this rule applied to determination of title, the Board should not have set aside the decree of the two courts below. It should have directed the trial court to comply with rule before proceeding to prepare final decree. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed. As no body has appeared for Respondents the Petitioner shall bear his own costs.;